"FROM HERE TO ETERNITY"

HURTS HOMOSEXUALS

The New York Film Critics' Award was given to a movie that has been seen by many moviegoers who found it enjoyable entertainment and if they haven't

done so will want to read the book. The movie version obeyed the Hollywood Code of censorship and deleted what was objectionable in the book from the picture, but a minority group of readers. the homosexuals, for the most part view with alarm the manner in which the author, James Jones, in his novel, "From Here to Eternity," handled the subject of homosexuality, and they are disturbed that countless more people are going to read a book that seems so harmless on the screen.

The homosexuals maintain that Mr. Jones promotes, in a subtle way, the profession known as "Playing the queers." If there has been an increase in "The Vilest of the Rackets," as Esquire magazines in a series of articles several years ago referred to blackmail, jackrolling, and other criminal practices, some instigation of it might well stem from those who read the book and "got ideas," as it certainly maps out a blueprint for preying on this unfortunately defenseless and weak group of citizens.

Quite a sizeable portion of the story is devoted to discussion of "the queers," as the soldiers refer to them. This of course makes sensational reading in a book that is full of the sensational "Boldest book of our times" they say but it is rather hard on those that are put in such a bad light.

In one chapter in particular of "From Here to Eternity" we are told of the trick used by the heroes Prew and Maggio to roll their host of his money. Winning the confidence of Hal and Tommy, the two homosexuals, and enjoying their host's liquor and hospitality, the soldiers then proceed to frighten Hal into paying off.

one

He offers $5, $10, $20, $30, and finally $40 before Prew will agree to leave the place and keep his accomplice, Maggio, from being picked up by the military police. They felt quite pleased at earning a little money in such an easy way.

Many readers will go along with Prew, convinced that he and Maggio, and other army men had a right to take anything they could get away from these "abnormal people." The general attitude seemed to be that most servicemen endorsed and approved this open robbery. Are we to believe that they would also sanction exploiting cripples, the blind, or mentally ill individuals?

It is true that the two unhappy men, one of which was victimized, Hal and Tommy, were unattractive, anti-social, negative personalities a sort that most homosexuals themselves would dislike but as Dr. Kinsey pointed out so well in "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," these obvious homosexuals constitute only a small portion. Why then cause an entire lot, which would include many of the better behaved, more presentable inverts, additional social ostracism?

As long as the subject was handled in this way by the novelist, it comes as a great relief to the movie-goer to know that the Hollywood Code has for many years strictly avoided homosexuality and in this film there is not the slightest reference to it. It is not difficult to imagine how uncomfortable, not only for Kinsey's 6% to 10% (or perhaps even a larger percentage in our big cities) who would be exclusively in this classification, but perhaps a third of the male movie audience might be embarrassed should Hollywood ever discard such a code and follow this or some similar book. That is, if we are to believe that one out of three men have had some such experience during his lifetime.